This is an interesting post from Anastasia, an academic mom whose blog I read (see sidebar) and who has a few things to say about how feminists discuss motherhood when nobody's looking (or nobody important, or nobody who is expected to disagree). What interests me about this is that it represents one of the major reasons that I have never been able to call myself a feminist, even when I was more friendly to feminism than I am today, and why I actively wrote papers in grad school that worked against the anti-mother rhetoric of feminist theory. What further interests me is that Anastasia seems like someone who would consider herself much more of a feminist than I do! Beware the language (which I'm not necessarily going to say is inappropriate), and let me know what you think when you come back! The comments, you will notice, are very anti-child, a backlash against Anastasia's reasoning that children need to be considered and included, and mainly focus on the type of parent who doesn't do much parenting and, let's face it, probably wasn't equipped to have children in the first place. This rather reminds me of Darwin's post about a playground incident in which he was called down for correcting a child who was terrorizing his much younger daughter. If people didn't hate kids in private and "respect their rights and privacy" in public, instead of, you know, saying "Excuse me, but your child is being incredibly rude and needs to be disciplined before s/he hurts someone" and accepting that some children are indeed well-disciplined, maybe this rhetoric of intolerance wouldn't persist in so-called "intellectual" circles. When everyone agreed on how children should behave, only the crotchety "Mr. Wilson" types from Dennis the Menace were expected to hate children. (Granted that some old-style "discipline" is now recognized as abuse, but many go too far in the opposite direction.) In some circles, cities, stores, it has become the norm.
For a related sentiment, a more subtle child-hatred, see Pro Ecclesia and the source, The Cause of Our Joy, on "The Town Without Children," which is, of course, the logical consequence of child-hatred and child-exclusion.
One more thing: It occurs to me after reading a HUGE number of the comments on the original post (don't go there, just don't; I can't be responsible for the consequences, and I don't want them following you back here--I put the link purely out of a sense of obligation), that no one considers for one minute that a woman might LIKE to have her kids around, that she might actually arrange her time so that she CAN spend it with them (whether she chooses to work outside of the home or not), and that she doesn't consider them an impediment to her enjoyment of life. WOW!
24 comments:
Why do you think it is that some feminists are anti-child and others are not? I have talked with straight feminists who are anti-child and I have talked with lesbian feminists who are very pro-child...in fact this particular couple was expecting twins. I think the problem some feminists have with children is that kids are a reminder that there are women in this world who love and desire men. Otherwise, how would the children have gotten there? I think feminsts who are anti-man see this as a weakness on the woman's part which is why they are much more accepting of lesbian couples who acquire pregnancy asexually. There is also the idea that pregnancy and motherhood, particularly married pregnancy and married motherhood, tends to make women more dependent (emotionally, financially or otherwise) on their husbands - another anti-feminist point.
So, in the end, I don't think that some feminists' deep-seeded dislike for children lies with the children (especially the girl children); I think it lies more with the children's mothers and fathers. Of course, though, the mothers are more to blame for their "weakness" in their inability to resist those good-looking men. We also can't overlook the fact that some feminist women are very jealous of women with children because they are conflicted between their own desires for children and their desires to practice radical feminism. They deal with the jealousy, sometimes, by lashing out against mothers.
Is the problem, then, with feminism or is it with the fact that we need more voices in our feminist literature? It is those women who resist the label of feminism whose voices most need to be heard in womens' studies.
By the way, last I heard, the term "feminist studies" was in the process of changing to "womens' studies." I'll let you ponder the change but I think it's a good change.
-C
Yes, you should see the indecent insinuations posted about male children. It seems that male children are patriarchal sexual monsters from birth, or at least from the age of 7 or so.
I think they blame their dislike of children on the fact that women are expected to care for them, but then they scorn the women who do care for them. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. I agree with Anastasia, who quotes a commenter on the original post, saying that people are afforded too much child-free space, leading to the opinion that children are little obscenities ad should be hidden until they reach an acceptable age. But really, I think there is a deep selfishness and self-centeredness underlying all of this. It reminds me of the Mother Theresa quote on all of the bumper stickers: that it is a tragedy that a child must die so that they might live the way they want. Yes, I know, that brings up the cursed a-word. But the point is a similar one--let not a child--mine or someone else's--interfere with my personal space. This extends to feminists with families also. More feminists that I know have problems with partners who refuse to make work-related sacrifices to help with child care! And because she herself refuses to make sacrifices, because, as a woman and a feminist, her career is just as important as her husband's if not more so (for ideological reasons--she needs to assert her right to work), the child is left out of the plans, since there is no occasion for compromise. I'm not anti-career for women by any means, but I think that compromises are still possible without either party losing integrity. But feminism, as a cult of self-interestedness, does not allow for sacrifice for another, either a man or a child, whether the woman willingly chooses to do so or not. After all, if she chooses to do so, it is likely because she still buys into the patriarchal system, no? That's when "certain" choices are affirmed, but others are not--because their driven by so-called "outdated ideologies."
Read the original post (or rather, the comments), just don't link to it from my blog (go to it from Anastasia's). See if the venom is directed against the women or the children. Even the more "pro-child" can only think about escaping the little monsters for a precious minute, or forcing their "co-parents" to take some if the child-care responsibility, 'cause God knows you wouldn't expect a man to do that willingly! Now why is it that feminists can't manage their husbands better? Because each "partner" is looking out for #1. Not much of a marriage there. :P
To be fair, "intellectuals" more generally are also anti-child. Not having a child at all--or certainly not having more than one--is the "enlightened" choice. Aldous Huxley has an interesting essay about the consequences of intellectuals failing to reproduce while less intelligent people do. Elitist? Absolutely. But it does make one think. And actually, if intellectuals decry reproduction as being only for the less-intelligent or enlightened, they are able to self-select. Those of use who do reproduce are less intelligent and enlightened by definition (or default). And let's not talk about people who reproduce because of religious beliefs or feelings!!
It is those women who resist the label of feminism whose voices most need to be heard in womens' studies.
What do you think would happen to a female academic who went public with any of the sentiments I've expressed? Not tenure!
Hi Literacy Chic,
I think ultimately that blaming "feminists" in one lump sum for being anti-child is the same as blaming "men" in one lump sum for being sexist. Feminism has pioneered, fought, bled, and wept for mothers' rights, children's rights (lest we forget the proto-feminists of the 19th century who fought to end child labor), and the right for women to control their own bodies.
Unfortunately, I think modern conceptions of feminism, the anti-child, anti-marriage, anti-anything but career, have done real damage to the movement for women's rights, whatever one might define that movement to be. I don't believe a woman can't be a feminist if she marries, has children, and becomes a stay-at-home mom. Feminism gave her the right to be whatever she darn well pleases, and if it pleases her to be a CEO or a SAH Mom, then huzzah feminism, in my opinion (esp. as I consider those two extremes to be perhaps similar in scope, complexity, and work pressure!).
But dividing feminism into This or That Camp, anti-child, pro-child, anti-mother, anti-patriarchal marriage conventions, etc. is ultimately what will destroy the fight for women's rights in the end. I am a feminist, personal, political, and academic, and I am married, possibly a future mother, and I cook happily and clean, not so happily. So, too, does my husband. I have friends (and we know there is a Very Large Number of them) with children, friends without, friends without by Very Loud Vocal Choice, and I don't think any of those decisions make them more or less feminist.
I think instead we need to look at the root of the problem: why do some people automatically assume "feminism," a movement based on multiplicities and ever-developing causes and searches for rights, should be a monolithic cause? Being pro- or anti-child does not make one a feminist or not; both sides of that argument (and all the ones in between) have deep roots in feminism, I'm sure, but we need not to blame the ideology. That becomes a scapegoat, and we need to look instead at the deeper purpose.
What does it mean to be pro- or anti-child in America today?
Ciao,
Amy
I absolutely agree with everything Amy said. I'd add to it with the suggestion that to simply use the term "feminism" is dangerous these days. Third-wave and pomo feminisms have done nothing *if not* illustrate that feminism is plural, multicultural, and multivalent. One cannot, with any authority, say what "feminists" writ large are or are not, whether that be anti-child, anti-choice, anti-marriage, or any other anti-.
Well said Amy. I do consider myself a feminist and I'm a married (to a man) mother. There are also many men who consider themselves feminists. I'm glad that I'm not crazy, then, when I try to explain that feminism is and needs to be multi-vocal. And, yes, we need the radical feminists too. They keep us on our ballerina toes. Hee-hee.
-C
Which reminds me...I really need to find out how to publish my comments under my own name.
-C
You all know how familiar I am with all of this. But individuals who consider themselves "feminists" very rarely speak out against how the most vocal and most politically active "feminists" wish to portray themselves. Some choose to affiliate themselves with an ideology that you all tell me is loosely based at best. What exactly is "feminism" if it's so multifaceted? How is it defined? Is it really what we make it, or are all who consider themselves "feminists" actually expected to say certain things and uphold certain so-called "ideals"? I have not seen any definition of feminism that I can relate to. I am an individual, a woman, a strong woman, a mother, ad a number of other things. But feminism carries too much baggage. You see I am willing to admit that the child hatred is prevalent among intellectuals of many persuasions. But feminism is an ideology, it does strongly suggest that certain behaviors are appropriate in certain situations, and it does suggest that the woman look out for #1 without considering much else, really.
Third-wave and pomo feminisms have done nothing *if not* illustrate that feminism is plural, multicultural, and multivalent.
Yes, but within certain select contexts--you mention them! Not everyone is included. Sorry. I've been fed this stuff for a long, long time. Where are the pro-motherhood feminists? There weren't many when I was researching my 3 papers on the topic. They're all too busy rejecting their own mothers or preserving their rights not to be mothers.
And in practice, don't all the feminists we know really think we should be tenured before we're mommies?
As for the proto-feminists of the 19th Century, many of them would have been appalled at what they're being credited with. But to be fair, let's not forget the tie between 19th century movements to allow women to "control their bodies" and 19th century movements to take away all reproductive rights from those who were deemed unfit--or didn't you realize the link with Eugenics? But it's always O.K. to prevent reproduction; permitting it is where the problems come in. After all, poor women don't realize they're oppressed by their kids, do they? Feminism has long-standing issues with reproduction, and if things had to get extreme for changes to be made, I don't think the "movement" has ever come around again. Sorry. So tell me that because I don't define myself under the blanket of feminism that I'm not a strong woman, and that I won't raise strong daughters. You can't. Rather, I'm teaching them to be free of one more set of intellectual expectations--to make up their own minds without reference to the NOW web site or any other representative voice for women.
P.S.-You may notice that I consider "feminism" to be distinct from "women's rights." What does the former label get us that the latter does not besides political baggage and free-associations?
You asked where the pro-motherhood feminists are. Well, I believe these are the women who advocate family-friendly workplaces, the Family Medical Leave Act which benefits working mothers and fathers, subsidzed day care for women seeking education, even those women who advocate tax breaks (and pay) for women who stay at home to take care of children. Unfortunately, all we hear about are the anti-motherhood (?) feminists. When you think about it, though, how can feminists actually be anti-motherhood when motherhood is an important role that most women fill? I think what some feminists are against is the belief that motherhood is necessarily limiting for women.
-C
Okay... So pro-motherhood feminists work for good causes, but aren't vocal in politics and don't contribute to theory. How do we know that these women consider themselves feminists, and that they're not just interested in fighting injustice?
Because feminism states: Any woman who is pro-woman is feminist (as long as she is pro-woman in a way we like). That way, feminism makes sure that it can claim to be all encompassing (within limits). But if those women were to say that they are not feminists, what then? Does feminism say, "Well, shucks, sure you are!" or "Well, screw you, then!"
Yes, there are multiplicities, but those who annunciate and develop the theory are the childless or neglecting ones since certain objectives/causes have been made the preeminent goals to implement, especially by the radicals or militants. Much has been accomplished for the better, but at what costs especially when the theoretical pondering and policy implications gets churned by the entertainment and fashion industries to promote a casual chain in which
control of the body is synonymous with independence from male domination/control/patriarchy =>
sex/libido/sexuality =>
an exercise of strength/will =>
independence =>
that in fact promotes objectification =>
that trends towards the confusion of physical stimuli for emotional / psychological nurturing. To quote Jake Morgandoffer from Daria, "sounds like the girls are gettin' liberated".
In a way, the the 60's/70's feminism got melded w/ the 80's greed and looking out for #1 ("Greed is good")to produce a very harmful blend of arrogance and fetishization (Madonna, Janet Jackson) that coupled with the technical innovations of the 90s (web,wide spread e-mail) have produced a very conflicted set of "values" espoused by feminism. Which has more skin on its monthly cover, Cosmo or Maxim? It may be a toss up! Both magazines display the female body, using sexuality, but one is empowerment, the other patriarchy; yet both objective and pander to the fetish (see the Lacanian branches of psychoanalysis or semiotics). Never mind that most of the models likely couldn't tell you what the acronym NOW means.
The deeper fundamental issue however is that the cause for women's rights/equality got co-opted by a historical dialectic - Dankeschön, Karl M— and in so doing, critical discourse was rendered ineffective since nothing could be rendered false/not supported since some exception or outliers could be raised. Not the way to conduct or develop good theory, but great for polemics when you want the issue, not a resolution.
"What exactly is "feminism" if it's so multifaceted? How is it defined? Is it really what we make it, or are all who consider themselves "feminists" actually expected to say certain things and uphold certain so-called "ideals"?"
I think these same questions can (and have) been rightfully asked about any identity or label of affiliation (What is Woman? How do we define Queer? What does it mean to be an Author? The list can go on forever.) The point is that, like the discussions that ensued after these questions were asked, there is no concrete answer. No one “true” definition. Ultimately, you believe what you want to believe, regardless of whether or not that makes it so. I consider myself a feminist based on what I believe are the foundational principles of feminism (which may or may not be the same principles someone else believes to be the foundation of feminism), and I don’t really care whether I’m “expected to say certain things and uphold certain so-called "ideals".”
"Where are the pro-motherhood feminists?"
They’re actually out there…lots of them. Some have even grouped together to form grassroots alliances. Pro-motherhood projects that can also be called feminist in nature include:
http://www.motherhoodproject.org/?cat=11
http://momsrising.org/ (which includes a list of supporting organizations, two of which are Feminist.com and NOW)
http://www.mothersoughttohaveequalrights.org/ (one of whose founders is long-time feminist Naomi Wolf)
"And in practice, don't all the feminists we know really think we should be tenured before we're mommies?"
Well, no actually, not in my case. A great mentor and professor, along with my M.A. advisor, were both very supportive of my single-mom status. In fact, the former is a mother and a pro-choice advocate, who offered lots of help in terms of making my existence in her class compatible with my status as a mom (she let me bring my daughter to class on several occasions). And I’m finding support now, as well, by my current PhD advisor and several feminist colleagues who don’t have children. They’ve understood the rationale behind my decision to have another child while in grad school, and they acknowledge that academia only gets busier once grad school is over and the tenure-track begins.
And as a last point (really, I'll stop hijacking comments), and this is only my perspective, I’m always suspect of the term “pro-family feminism,” especially as it was used in the late 70’s and throughout the 80’s. Then (and some would argue now), it was used mainly as a platform for religious and right-wing conservatives, who merely used it as a way of disguising what I (and many others) consider oppressive and sexist attitudes and policies aimed at women and social services (see Michele Adams’ Women’s Rights and Wedding Bells). For me, political baggage is like regular baggage: it may weigh me down on occasion, but it carries some very useful stuff inside.
Considering Amy's question,
Why do some people automatically assume "feminism," a movement based on multiplicities and ever-developing causes and searches for rights, should be a monolithic cause?: what is a movement without a purpose? How does anyone know from one minute to the next what is feminist and what is not? Do we just search for what we don't have and claim it as a right? Wait for someone to declare that something is wrong and say we've got to allow it? You see, I can't be a feminist. I don't know what the word means!!
But looking, as Amy suggests, at the larger purpose, acknowledging that, as AcadeMama and Amy both say, feminism encompasses so much these days that to say "feminist" is reductive, we perhaps might ask why any feminist(s) would feel the need to be anti-child.
-I suggest selfishness, because feminism (as I understand it) asserts that the female self is entitled to liberation from everything that prevents her from doing whatever it is that she wants, simply because it was traditionally denied and she has to make up for lost time.
-I suggest further that various breeds of intellectuals feel that not having children is a more enlightened choice. The reasons for this vary.
-Bluejay suggests that certain causes have come to dominate, which is certainly true.
-Bluejay further elucidates that claiming control over the body, independence from male control is asserted through a flaunting of what attracts the male gaze (in order to call attention to the fact that males are gazing), sexuality is key to that independence (and sexuality is defined for us--after all, are celibacy and chastity sexuality? Not to those who want priests to be married or practicing homosexuals!), and the conflation of sexuality, independence, and emotion lead to objectification through the media. It's a vicious cycle!
-So drawing on the importance of sexuality, the consequence of sexuality, i.e. children, are the impediment to the assertion of independence through sexuality.
-Children also represent a control over the female body, as anyone who has been pregnant knows first hand, which is why pregnancy is to be avoided.
-Then, once born, children require the nurturing for which sex has become a substitute.
-Children also require and acknowledgment of responsibility to others--the child and even perhaps the spouse.
-Children require compromise, which is not a feminist value that I can tell, as women are not supposed to compromise their goals (hear: wants) for anyone else. After all, she deserves to do what she wants because of all the women who could not or did not do what they wanted. (Never mind that those women's wants were different.)
Base of the problem: Feminism is about women's rights to have rights. It doesn't matter what the rights are or whether they're right by any standard--objective or otherwise. This idea of rights is extremely sexualized--always has been, at least since "the personal" was declared "political," but certainly before. And children, who have traditionally been associated with women, not sexual though sexualized and the product of sex, are shunned because they threaten all of the above.
Then the historical dialectic tells us that we have no reason to complain because we're represented by the ideology, too, even if we don't want to be.
Isn't it oppression if you have to be defined by something that is composed of things you oppose?
Academama,
Don't leave!
A great mentor and professor, along with my M.A. advisor, were both very supportive of my single-mom status.
Wasn't this because you already had the child, though? How would the situation have differed if you were considering getting pregnant or became pregnant accidentally?
Who makes us feel like all pregnancies should be "planned"?
You see, pro-motherhood feminism always includes the caveat that the motherhood shouldn't really interfere with one's convenience--hence the "planned" thing. Even if no one outwardly condemns the woman who "allows herself" to become pregnant and follows through with the birth and parenting of that child, that child-hatred, that little seed that says that kids are inconvenient, makes the woman self-conscious when she shouldn't be. NOW and Feminist.com are a bit louder about affirming termination than affirming parenting, though they may include the latter in order to be "inclusive."
I've never used the term "pro-family feminism" myself. But its funny that those who do are not really considered feminists by those in the know. That begs a question or two, no?
"Why do some people automatically assume "feminism," a movement based on multiplicities and ever-developing causes and searches for rights, should be a monolithic cause?"
What strikes me is that, as academics , we've been through methodology, philosophy, theory, lit crit, etc and we know the major schools of thought in our respective disciplines, even if the terms get confounded or hybridized by adopted by other fields. If you say realism to me, I'd think of the hallmarks of literature or painting but I could think of one of the major schools of international relations. But do most of the theories we use in analysis and elucidation of research questions also serve as a cause? No, but feminism does. Inquiry has given way to activism and that likely undermines objectivity. Is String theory a movement? No, simply a theoretical framework to explicate aspects of Einstein's physics.
It's clear from reading the comments that there is a void in the conceptionalization of feminism as opposed to other theoretical frameworks that hinders - obscures, obfuscates - the theory. Part of this hindrance is simply because we're observing social phenomena and the variation and causal links are more tenuous and not as testable as those found in the hard sciences. Econ, Linguistics (not that sociolinguistics dribble obviously) and Poli Sci are not as rigorous as Chemistry, for instance, but are a hell of a lot more robust in conceptionalization, operationalization and testing than Cultural Studies.
In defining feminism, what is the phenomenon? How is it abstracted for study? Who/What are the observed sources of behavior (people, institutions, social structures), the manifestations of activity, etc. What are the results, outcomes? What are the theories to explain the relationship between the observed behavior and the outcome? Remember, we don't test theories, we test hypotheses derived from our theory and we reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis - we want explanation, not justification or polemics. This is one of the points where feminism breaks down, but it's not just a theory it's a cause and rather than describe the behavior, it needs to be made ideological (why? see anything written by Marx) We know what some of the assumptions are - though some latent ones are willingly unacknowledged - and these need to stated, but are not. Some of the assumptions need to questioned, but have they?
We also know that certain schools of thought become established and it takes a revolution to wipe them. Essentially take a look at Kuhn, Lakatos or Popper - all Philosophy of Science thinkers - for their varied takes on the established paradigm/method of inquire/explanation, the crisis that needs to occur -increasingly obvious lack of explanatory power and conceptualization- and the resulting explanatory shift when the dominant paradigm is shown not to be capable of explaining as much as the new one. It's a long and tedious process, but needed for intellectual growth. How many centuries did it take for Newtonian physics to be replaced?
The established paradigm/method of inquire/explanation, the crisis that needs to occur -increasingly obvious lack of explanatory power and conceptualization- and the resulting explanatory shift when the dominant paradigm is shown not to be capable of explaining as much as the new one. It's a long and tedious process, but needed for intellectual growth. How many centuries did it take for Newtonian physics to be replaced?
Awwww... crap. Does that mean we're going to have to around and around with this until so-called "patriarchal institutions" are wiped out? That is, forever? And only THEN can we move beyond it? ;P
A reading list for those who are interested in the subject:
Emecheta, Buchi, The Joys of Motherhood, Heinemann (Tx) March 1994.
Fineman, Martha Albertson and Isabel Karpin (editors), Mothers in Law: Feminist Theory and the Legal Regulation of Motherhood, Columbia University Press, 1995.
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano, Grace Change, and Linda Rennie Forcey (editors), Mothering: Ideology, Experience, and Agency, Routledge, 1993
Hays, Sharon, The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood, Yale University Press, 1998.
Jetter, Alexis, Annelise Orleck, and Diana Taylor (editors), The Politics of Motherhood, Dartmouth College, 1997.
Kaplan, E. Ann, Motherhood and Representation : The Mother in Popular Culture and Melodrama, Routledge, 1992.
Rich, Adrienne, Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution, W. W. Norton & Company, 1995.
Umansky, Lauri, Motherhood Reconceived: Feminism and the Legacies of the Sixties, New York University Press, 1996.
Shulamit Reinharz, Feminist Methods in Social Research (Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 240-269.
Liz Stanley and Sue Wise, "Method, Methodology and Epistemology in Feminist Research Processes," pp. 20-60 in Liz Stanley (editor), Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and epistemology in Feminist Sociology (Routledge, 1990).
Sara Ruddick, "Maternal Thinking" Feminist Studies 6 (1980): pp. 342-364.
Nancy Scheper-Hughes, "(M)Other Love: Culture, Scarcity, and Maternal Thinking," pp. 340-399 in Death Without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil (University of California Press, 1992).
Linda Blum, "'Mother to Mother' in La Leche League," pp. 63-107 in At the Breast: Ideologies of Breastfeeding and Mothering in the Contemporary United States (Beacon Press, 1999)
Martha McMahon, Engendering Motherhood: Identity and Self-Transformation in Women's Lives (Guilford Press, 1995), pp. 137-190.
Phyllis Chesler, With Child: A Diary of Motherhood (Thomas Y. Crowell, 1979), excerpts.
Susan Douglas, "Mama Said," pp. 43-60 in Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass Media (Random House, 1994)
Michelle Harrison, "Social Construction of Mary Beth Whitehead," Gender & Society, 1(3), 1987, pp. 300-311.
Patricia Hill Collins, "Mammies, Matriarchs, and Other Controlling Images," pp. 67-90 in Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (Unwin Hyman, 1990)
Catherine A. Lutz and Jane L. Collins, Reading National Geographic (University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 1-14 and 166-185
Tillie Olsen, "I Stand Here Ironing," pp. 1-12 in Tell Me A Riddle (Delta, 1989).
Paulette Childress White, "Getting the Facts of Life," pp. 129-140 in Mary Helen Washington (editor), Memory of Kin: Stories About Family by Black Writers (Doubleday, 1991)
Tina Howe, "Birth and Afterbirth," pp. 45-114 in Rosette C. Lamont (editor), Women on the Verge: Seven Avant-Garde Plays (Applause, 1993)
I got this list from a course description in Womens' Studies at Gettysburgh College. Sounds like an interesting class. Here's the website:
http://public.gettysburg.edu/~jpotuche/ws400/syllabus.htm
By the way, it's great that we can have this discussion.
-C
I've got my own bibliographies. Tell me which ones you have read and we can compare notes. "I Stand Here Ironing," for example, is one I used for a speech piece in high school. Others I recently sold at Half Price Books, notably Motherhood and Representation which I didn't think said much; Of Woman Born, which I read cover to cover many years ago, I think I decided to hang onto... It's kind of a classic. I'm not unschooled in this, but in order to subscribe to an ideology--to a belief system of any kind--I have to have a good idea, first of all, of the tenets of that belief system, and second of all, I have to be able to accept those tenets. I've said before that I'm kind of a purist when it comes to most things.
_The Politics of Motherhood_ is actually an anthology you might enjoy. I haven't read all the essays in it but I think I will now since it's on my bookshelf. You probably wouldn't consider it feminist theory because it's goal is to communicate how motherhood is multi-faceted, globally. There are many essays based on personal narratives which show motherhood affects identity, consciousness, and political activism for the better. So, here, motherhood is seen in a positive light. You should check it out.
-C
For teaching I'd also suggest:
Jennifer A. Nelson, "'Abortion under Community Control': Feminism, Nationalism, and the Politics of Reproduction among New York City's Young Lords," Journal of Women's History 13:1 (2001)
Susan Douglas' The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How it has Undermined all Women. NY: Free Press, 2004
and
Ann Snitow, "Feminism and Motherhood: An American Reading," in Feminist Review No. 40 (Spring, 1992).
I believe that Rebecca Walker's latest book is about this topic--"Baby Love". I have not read it yet.
On Feminism and Motherhood: If we define feminism as one particular thing (like liberal feminism) then your complaints about "selfishness" and materialism are certainly true. But if we open the discussion of "feminism" up to include more women activists, I think it challenges the idea that feminism is always already anti-child. That is why I so love the Young Lord's article which isn't just about abortion but also child care & health. But the academy rarely counts these women as feminists, no?
SIDE NOTE: I am not sure if your comments on Anastasia's post and your reference to Darwin was directed toward my comments in particular, but if so, you've made assumptions that are not true.
SIDE NOTE: I am not sure if your comments on Anastasia's post and your reference to Darwin was directed toward my comments in particular, but if so, you've made assumptions that are not true.
I could answer this, if I knew who you were and what you were talking about. Suffice it to say, I have never seen your handle before.
O.K., Kisha... I was taking your comment as a jumping-off point, actually, and using it to discuss a broader phenomenon that I have observed. Didn't mean to attribute anything to you--or to anyone specific, actually.
Post a Comment